Accusations of rape when evidence shows the woman was going to have sex with the man

Only a lawyer can know the answer. I did not find publicly available documents on evidence standards.

 

So the only way false accusations can be detrimental to a man is if after interactions with police after arrest, after being put in jail, is facing charges?

I don't think you're approaching this with the slightest bit of integrity.

 

There are plenty of rape cases that make the news over the past 20 years. If the case makes it to trial, it was probably covered by some news outlet. The evidence for those cases is available. It shouldn't be hard to find an example of one where the only evidence was the accuser's statement.

 

This is true of any accusation. False accusations of theft, assault, fraud, or anything else could cause harm to someone. If that's your concern, then it's not really about rape.

It is a crime to make false statements to the police, even if the person making the false statement is claiming they were raped.

 

I will study this issue.

Sadly, I have not become a lawyer -- that is my missed opportunity.

 

but it isn't though. Other crimes you would have things like evidence.

You mentioned theft I can't just randomly accuse people of theft and have them investigated.

And if I do that there's most likely going to be repercussions for me

that's incorrect. There would have to be evidence in the lack of it would exonerate you.

Rape generally doesn't have any evidence it's taking one person's word over the word of another.

And when someone was lying about being raped on the national stage, Dr Ford, she wasn't prosecuted for her false accusations she gets to go off and continue being a professor after attempting to ruin a man.

And out of that we had believe all women become a phrase.

We had women accusing men of rape for them fulfilling sexual favorites for job placement that's consensual.

Yeah it's a crime that's largely ignored when women accuse men of raping them.

 

One case I remember that was making the news where a woman falsely accused of man of raping her
was the kavanaugh case.

There is absolutely no evidence at all that this occurred as Doctor Ford charged with a crime?

So false accusations aren't a crime at least not a crime that gets adjudicated in this case

 

Do you have evidence that Dr. Ford lied under oath?

If so, then she should be charged with a crime.

 

In case you haven't been paying attention, I have posted several stories about just such a thing in this forum.

There are even two links in this thread to such stories. (One in the first post, and another in the middle of the second page, post #43 )

 

The other side of that coin is, do we have any way to determine if she is not lying?
I mean, suppose that she were lying, what is the rough liklihood that we would be able to find enough evidence against her and know it with enough certainty to prosecute?

No one wants to prosecute a woman accusing a man of rape when there's even a small chance she might be telling the truth, even if we know she is probably lying.
It would make other women too afraid to come forward.

Especially with recent laws that remove the statute of limitations and allow a woman's accusations of an incident that allegedly happened 10 or 15 years ago to be used in a case against a man who is being accused. That is going to make it virtually impossible to prove that she is lying. (For example, most businesses only hold on to security video camera footage for 90 days, and then it is deleted)

 

You haven't listed a single example of a case where a man was convicted based solely on the statement of the victim, other than Mike Tyson.

This entire thread is just incels worried that they might be accused of rape one day.

 

We are bringing attention to injustice -- the fact that men can be convicted of Sexual Assault on the accuser's word alone. That has been the law since 1970s. It started happening in 1980s and more so now.

Sadly, Progressives are willing to sacrifice innocent people for what they see as the Greater Good.

 

You keep saying that men can be convicted of sexual assault on the accuser's word alone, like it's some sort of meaningful problem, but the only example of a conviction people can bring up is Mike Tyson.

 

I do not know exactly how common such cases are. They may be very common. They definitely do take place.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rape-kits-are-sitting-on-shelves-untested/

there are hundreds of thousands of rape kits across the country that don't even get followed up on.

I can give plenty of evidence that we have a serious problem with rapes going unsolved.

There isn't anywhere near as much evidence to support the claim that innocent men get convicted based just on the statement of their accuser.

In a discussion about rape, the focus should be on us solving more rapes, not on protecting some imagined poor innocent man.

 

You realize that's not really an argument in this thread?

It seems you're just trying to use emotion, but what you brought up has little logical connection to the issue.

The topic of this thread is women accusing a specific man. How many of these untested rape kits involve that situation?
And the topic of this thread is not just a woman accusing a man, but more specifically when there is evidence that she wanted to sleep with him. The issue in that situation is not so much whether or not he slept with her. It's therefore perfectly reasonable that the authorities might choose not to waste money doing a DNA test on the sample, if they are planning not to proceed with the case.

You talk about "rapes going unsolved" but women accusing a specific man and no case or conviction resulting from the report is only a tiny subset of that. I don't think it's even appropriate to use the word "unsolved". If she's accusing a specific man, we practically already know who did it, if a rape actually happened.

Even if there were an issue that the police did not believe the victim because they believed the sex may have been consensual, that would not happen until AFTER the police did the test and found out who the suspect was, if the woman was not specifically accusing a certain man.

 

Sadly many Progressives explicitly approve of sacrificing innocent people for what they perceive as the Greater Good.

There have been cases, where a man was convicted on the accuser's word alone and kept in prison many years after the accuser recanted.

John Kinsel case:

 

All i see are some men who seem to be worried that they are going to be accused of rape.

 

It can happen. Guys who make a hobby out of one night stands, hookers or internet hook-ups are taking a risk, and not only with the rape accusation, but also with STDs and possibly getting robbed. Down here in Miami-Ft Lauderdale area we have female 'sharks' who look for guys with Rolexes and/or Lamborginis and they seduce them and the next thing the guy knows, he wakes up in a strange place without his wallet and Rolex. Lot of guys also get away with rape, so there is that too.

Yes, and it makes me wonder. Those of us in steady relationships never have to think about it.

 

I cannot condemn the crime of rape strongly enough and I don't doubt that many rapes go unreported and unpunished but an innocent man does not have to be convicted to face severe punishment in court of public opinion.

Merely being publicly accused of rape is enough to ruin a man's reputation, employment possibilities and possibly face violent "retaliation" from family members of the accuser.
Even if he is acquitted of the charge of rape in a court of law, he will always be known as "the guy involved in that rape thing".

I am at least if not more sympathetic to victims of rape who carries the emotional scars of a legitimate rape for the rest of their lives.

This thread, however is apparently about contested charges of rape in which a woman apparently changed her mind after initial intimacies and apparently after both were intoxicated to some degree.

It is at least my opinion that it is entirely the right of either party to call a stop to further intimacies at any time. As vexing, inconvenient and frustrating as it may be, I feel that it is incumbent upon the stronger of the two people to comply with the wishes of the weaker.

A man that has to use pressure, deception, drugs etc to get a woman to have sex with him is not a man, he's a malevolent sociopath who needs psychiatric help.

Thanks,

 

Except there aren't many examples of this happening. The cases where men are convicted of rape based solely on the statement of the victim, are extremely rare to the point of almost being nonexistent.

If a woman lies to the police, that is a crime. If a woman slanders a man, she can be sued. There are already legal remedies.

There isn't anything we can do about the court of public opinion, that is the public's fault.

Rape is one of the hardest crimes to get a conviction for. If we need to change anything, it is to make rape easier to get a conviction for, not harder.

 

Maybe this isn't about the actual rape event but the quality of the sex or the finances of the man having sex, for example? Maybe, IMO, one could sue, for example, MacDonalds after consenting to buy the hamburger?

 

I did not mean to communicate in any way that I thought that the bar for getting a rape conviction should be higher, I am simply aware of false rape charges that drove a man to suicide.

I worked as a Psychiatric Case Worker for about ten years and am aware of cases in which employees in a position of trust would rape psychiatric patients who were entirely unable to give rational consent. In a similar instance, I remember a case in which a male security guard had a sexual relationship with a 16 year old juvenile resident of a state run Group Home. He, too, betrayed his position of trust but was tried and convicted of rape and related crimes.

In both cases, convictions were easily obtained without the victim's testimony and, to my knowledge, neither rapist worked in a similar position again.

It was a third near incident that should concern anyone who works in a position of trust with emotionally disturbed individuals.
In the early 1980s, I worked at a co-ed, state run group home for juvenile offenders.
Briefly put, 4 of the female juvenile residents were planning to set me up for a false rape charge. Fortunately, I had a good rapport with most all of the juvenile residents so that 2 of the girls came forward and confessed to my supervisor what they were planning. I was only made aware of this plan after the 4 culprits had been confronted and the situation was resolved but the thought of what almost happened still sends chills up my spine.

Thanks,

 

Even if those 4 girls had made it to the point of reporting you to the police, their story would have likely fallen apart with minimal scrutiny - which is the job of police doing an investigation.

It's certainly not an example of someone being convicted based only on the word of the accuser, as the OP of this thread was trying to warn us about.

 

You're right.
I didn't mean to suggest that convictions based on a victim's testimony were common.

Rape is a demented form of bullying and I have a special dislike for bullies.

Thanks,